MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158220579 · doi:10.1300/j070v15n03_03

Attributions and Coping in Sexually Abused Adolescents Referred for Group Treatment

2006· article· en· W2158220579 on OpenAlexaff
Isabelle Daigneault, Martine Hébert, Marc Tourigny

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Sexual Abuse · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttributionPsychologyClinical psychologyAngerPsychological interventionCoping (psychology)AnxietySexual abusePoison controlDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatrySuicide preventionMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to assess the predictive value of two sets of variables, self-attributions, and coping behaviors, on sexually abused (SA) teenagers' functioning, while controlling for abuse-related and family variables. A total of 103 female adolescents completed self-report measures to assess their psychological functioning in terms of anxiety, depression, PTSD, sexual concerns, dissociation, anger, their self-injurious behaviors, antisocial behaviors, and drug use. After controlling for SA and family characteristics, final regression models indicate that attributions and coping behaviors explained between 22% and 39% of additional unique variance for seven out of the nine measures of adolescent functioning. Attributions and coping behaviors did not significantly explain additional variance for scores of antisocial behaviors and drug use. Personal attributions of blame for negative events were the strongest predictors of adolescents' functioning. Implications for future research and interventions are highlighted.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child Sexual AbuseSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207